Author: Andre Beteille
Publication: The Hindu
Date: March 10, 2001
AS A student of anthropology in
Calcutta in the 1950s, I was recommended a book written by the well-known
physical anthropologist, M.F. Ashley Montagu, some of whose other works
we also had to study. The book to which I now refer was entitled ``Man's
Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race''. Ashley Montagu had overstated
his case somewhat, but the basic point he was making, that the widely-used
concept of race was politically pernicious and scientifically anomalous,
had come to be generally accepted among anthropologists by the middle of
the 20th century.
Some anthropologists attended to
the political mischief caused by the idea of race while others exposed
its scientific ambiguities. The most notable among the latter was Franz
Boas, widely regarded as the father of American anthropology. In his book,
``Race, Language and Culture'', he established conclusively with a wealth
of empirical material the distinction between race which is a biological
category with physical markers and social groupings based on language,
religion, nationality, style of life or status. Boas's conclusion may be
regarded as the settled opinion on the subject among professional anthropologists
the world over.
``Race, Language and Culture'',
published in 1940, was the culmination of systematic and painstaking research
by two or three generations of anthropologists. In the 19th century, when
anthropology was still largely an amateur pursuit, the concept of race
was widely and loosely use to cover virtually every kind of social grouping.
One read about the Aryan race, the Semitic race and the Irish race. The
influential French writer Count Gobineau even proposed that the different
social classes in France were composed of different races. In fact, race
and class were linked together in Europe even before attempts were made
to link race with caste in India. Pseudo-scientific theories of race abounded
in late 19th and early 20th century in Europe and America. They made no
small contribution to Hitler's disastrous racial policies in Germany. Although
the English, the French and the Americans adopted a self-consciously virtuous
attitude after 1945, they too produced an abundance of pseudo-scientific
theories of race before World War II.
At about the same period of time,
the Indian Civil Service counted a fair number of amateur anthropologists
in its ranks. Some of them have left behind valuable accounts of the tribes
and castes in India. Others took an interest in race that at times amounted
to an obsession. The obsessive ones found evidence of race wherever they
looked. Their main confusion was between race and language, and they wrote
freely about the `Aryan race' and the `Dravidian race'. Some treated Hindus
and Muslims as belonging to different races, and others expressed similar
views about the upper and the lower castes. These views, based on a confusion
of categories, are now regarded as worthless from the scientific point
of view.
It is not as if there was no serious
scientific effort by the ICS anthropologists to study the racial composition
of the Indian population. Several of them attended to the problem with
patience and care, combining the study of physical features with that of
social customs. The most notable was Sir Herbert Risley who produced a
comprehensive classification of the races of India into seven types. But
the principal `racial types' in his classification - Aryan, Dravidian,
Aryo-Dravidian and Mongolo- Dravidian - were linguistic or regional categories
in disguise and not racial categories at all. The subsequent classification
by B.S. Guha, made in connection with the census of 1931, was less ambitious,
for it did not speak of `racial types' but only of `racial elements' in
the population of the country.
In the mid-1950s when I was a student
of anthropology, most anthropologists had lost interest in the racial classification
of the Indian population. Although there were many different racial elements
in it, it was difficult, if not impossible, to sort them out into distinct
racial groups. In the 1970s, I took some initiative on behalf of Oxford
University Press to update Guha's work on racial elements. I approached
a number of physical anthropologists, but they either declined or said
that they would do it but failed to deliver. I am now convinced that identifying
the races in the population of India will be an exercise in futility.
Despite all the hard work done by
anthropologists from Boas onward, the idea of race dies hard in the popular
imagination. That is understandable. What is neither understandable nor
excusable is the attempt by the United Nations to revive and expand the
idea of race, ostensibly to combat the many forms of social and political
discrimination prevalent in the world. It is sad but true that many forms
of invidious discrimination do prevail in the contemporary world. But to
assimilate or even relate them all to `racial discrimination' will be an
act of political and moral irresponsibility.
Not content with condemning racism
and racial discrimination, the U.N. now wants to take on `racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance'. It has in its wisdom
decided to expand the meeting of racial discrimination to accommodate exclusion
or preference `based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin'.
In doing so it is bound to give a new lease of life to the old and discredited
notion of race current a hundred years ago. By flying in the face of the
distinctions between race, language and culture, it is seeking to undo
the conclusions reached by the researches of several generations of anthropologists.
Interested parties within and outside
the U.N. would like to bring caste discrimination in general and the practice
of untouchability in particular within the purview of racial discrimination.
The practice of untouchability is indeed reprehensible and must be condemned
by one and all; but that does not mean that we should now begin to regard
it as a form of racial discrimination. The Scheduled Castes of India taken
together are no more a race than are the Brahmins taken together. Every
social group cannot be regarded as a race simply because we want to protect
it against prejudice and discrimination.
In the past, some groups claimed
superior rights on the ground that they belonged to the Aryan race or the
Teutonic race. The anthropologists rejected such claims on two grounds:
first, on the ground that within the same human species no race is superior
to any other; but also on the ground that there is no such thing as an
Aryan race or a Teutonic race. We cannot throw out the concept of race
by the front door when it is misused for asserting social superiority and
bring it in again through the back door to misuse it in the cause of the
oppressed. The metaphor of race is a dangerous weapon whether it is used
for asserting white supremacy or for making demands on behalf of disadvantaged
groups.
If discrimination against disadvantaged
castes can be defined as a form of racial discrimination, there is no reason
why discrimination, real or alleged, against religious or linguistic minorities
cannot be phrased in exactly the same terms. The Muslims and other religious
minorities will claim that they too, and not just backward castes, are
victims of racial discrimination. The initiative taken by the U.N. is bound
to encourage precisely that kind of claim.
The U.N. initiative will open up
a Pandora's box of allegations of racial discrimination throughout the
world. The latitudinarian attitude of the U.N. will encourage religious
and other `ethnic' minorities to make allegations of racial discrimination
not only in India, but everywhere. The Catholics in Northern Ireland can
claim that they too are victims of racial discrimination. The French Canadians,
whose grievances are real enough, can also make the same claim. One can
multiply examples from every corner of the world. By treating caste discrimination
as a form of racial discrimination and, by implication, caste as a form
of race, the U.N. is turning its back on established scientific opinion.
One can only guess under what kind of pressure it is doing so. Treating
caste as a form of race is politically mischievous; what is worse, it is
scientifically nonsensical.
